MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037067185 · doi:10.1139/b08-015

Herbivores and pathogens on<i>Alnus viridis</i>subsp.<i>fruticosa</i>in Interior Alaska: effects of leaf, tree, and neighbour characteristics on damage levels

2008· article· en· W2037067185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christa P. H. Mulder, Bitty A. Roy, Sabine Güsewell

Bibliographic record

VenueBotany · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiologyHerbivorePhloemBotanyTaigaHost (biology)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parasite damage strongly affects dynamics of boreal forests. Damage levels may be affected by climate change, either directly or indirectly through changes in properties of host trees. We examined how herbivore and pathogen damage in Alnus viridis subsp. fruticosa (Rupr.) Nym. depend on leaf morphology and chemistry, tree size, and tree neighborhood. Damage and tree properties were measured in 2003 and 2004 on eight trees at each of 20 sites in Interior Alaska. Damage varied significantly among sites and among trees within sites, but Cartesian distances between sites were not correlated with similarity in damage levels. Compared with middle leaves, terminal leaves experienced less damage from phloem-feeding insects and pathogens, whereas leaf-roller damage was largely confined to terminal leaves. Summer drought in 2004 strongly reduced damage from phloem-feeding insects, while damage from chewing insects increased. Overall, herbivore damage was best explained by leaf morphology and chemistry, and pathogen damage by the proximity of other trees; the two damage types were not correlated with each other. Reproduction was negatively correlated with herbivore damage, but positively with pathogen damage. The contrasting relationships found for individual feeding guilds suggest that they must be studied separately in assessing impacts of climate change on parasite damage.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBotanySame topicEcology and Vegetation Dynamics StudiesFrench-language works237,207